Tags

  • Published on

    The power of "social"—learning together

    Complexity Governance Research Strategy

    On paper, academics and practitioners agree that governance boards have two roles: future performance (strategy) and conformance. Yet in reality most Boards seem to expend most of their energy on conformance. Twenty-four days ago, a California lawyer, Douglas Y. Park, asked why Boards do this. Park's blogpost triggered a robust discussion on a LinkedIn group. Now, 324 comments later, a new model for governance seems to be emerging.

    This might seem to be a rather minor event on the world's stage, however I think it is significant, for several reasons. I'll highlight two in particular. First, great minds from all around the world have shared their experiences and thoughts about the topic—without spending anything on travel, accommodation or conference fees. The speed of interaction and "reach" has been truly amazing. Second, in addition to purely commentating and critiquing, correspondents have worked together to create a new model. This is one of the first times I've seen an online discussion add such value.

    If this example of going beyond "sharing" to "creating" is a bellwether of future learning and knowledge creation, we are in for an exciting ride!

  • Published on

    Social progress and societal wellbeing: What role will you play?

    Complexity Integrity Leadership Performance Societal Wellbeing Sustainability

    One of my core motivations for embarking on my doctoral research is a deep belief that a link exists between good company performance and the 'two socials'—social progress and societal wellbeing. If companies can find ways to sustain high levels of performance, then society will be better for it. Getting ahead is good, we have all heard and read messages extolling the virtue. However, many have interpreted 'getting ahead' as getting rich—presumably to enjoy life to the max, without necessarily sharing the gains with others. The saying "He who dies with the most toys wins" comes to mind. This troubles me.

    My faith in business leaders to do the right thing was restored somewhat this week however, when I read this article. With references to other studies, including a very good report published by Forbes, the authors suggest that mucking in and helping others is going mainstream. Leaders of successful businesses seem to be moving beyond selfish financial goals and beyond handing out cash, to helping out. This is inspiring stuff, and it should give us all hope. But more than that, it is a call to action. We all have a role to play—some as thinkers and 'thought' leaders, others as implementers and 'do' leaders. What role will you play?

  • Published on

    What defines you? Are you a successaholic?

    Accountability Complexity Effectiveness Integrity Time Management

    We live in a busy world. Most of us have a lot going on in our lives, particularly our work lives. Daily, we seem to have more to see and more to do. And through our wireless devices, we are "always on" and constantly checking in—even when we are not at work. Superficially, this commitment to cause sounds good. But is it as good as we think?

    As life speeds by, we are all at risk of  being swept along with it. But an excessive focus on work and success can lead to significant compromises in other areas, particularly in our personal lives. And that can be unhealthy.

    Leslie Perlow, Harvard Professor and author of Sleeping with your Smartphone, recently wrote a great article on how to overcome this addiction to success which is played out through our mobile devices. She offers some practical tips that will enable you to devote more time to your personal life and become more productive in your work life. I commend this article to you. It'll only take 5 minutes to read. If you are game enough to try Leslie's suggestions, I'd love to hear how you get on—and I'm sure she would be as well!

  • Published on

    Gender diversity disclosures...on what basis?

    Complexity Diversity Effectiveness Governance Performance

    The discussion about gender diversity disclosures this week piqued my interest.

    Are these calls for gender and age disclosures simply representative of societal pressures towards inclusiveness, or are they because increased gender and age diversity is linked to increased company performance?

    Researchers have been studying the supposed link between board composition factors and company performance for many years. To date, their findings are inconclusive. Gender diversity does, however, seem to lead to more civilised debate in the boardroom, higher accountabilities and better attendance. So, there appears to be goodness in diversity. However, we must to be careful not to confuse these inputs and activity with the desired output of increased company performance.

    New Zealand was first to give women the vote, and that was good for society. Moving towards diversity in the boardroom may also be good for society. However, we don't know that yet. 

    I applaud any move towards increased transparency and disclosure, particularly for listed companies. However, if the motivation is to move down a diversity pathway for which no solid evidence linking increased diversity to company performance is available, are we not on dangerous ground?